Please help us continue to provide you with free, quality journalism by turning off your ad blocker on our site.

Thank you for signing in.

If this is your first time registering, please check your inbox for more information about the benefits of your Forbes account and what you can do next!

I agree to receive occasional updates and announcements about Forbes products and services. You may opt out at any time.

I'd like to receive the Forbes Daily Dozen newsletter to get the top 12 headlines every morning.

Forbes takes privacy seriously and is committed to transparency. We will never share your email address with third parties without your permission. By signing in, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Statement.

In November, the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans asked me to speak at their 2011 annual conference, on the topic of hospital consolidation. Given Massachusetts’ central role in the debate over health reform, and the top-notch health policy thinkers in the Boston area, I readily accepted.

In the 31-minute video below, I cover a number of historical topics, including: (1) how hospital mergers spiked in response to pressure from insurers to reduce health spending; (2) how early studies from economists failed to identify how hospital mergers drive up the price of health care; (3) how newer studies suggest that concentrated hospital markets lead to pricing increases of as much as 44 percent; (4) how government-subsidized health programs, such as Medicare, drive the problem of hospital consolidation. If you want to follow along, download the slides before watching the video.

In the second half of the talk, I discuss what can be done about the problem. There are basically two plausible approaches: (1) increase the market power of payors, either using single-payer health care or private insurance monopsonies; or (2) decrease the market power of providers, so that both payors and providers are equally fragmented. To me, option (2) makes much more economic sense, and is also more politically practical than trying to achieve single-payer health care.

However, as I discuss in the talk, the problem is that when the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have tried to block anti-competitive hospital mergers in court, judges have sided with the hospitals, against the officials at DOJ/FTC. So judges need to do a better job of understanding the economic evidence that weighs against hospital mergers.

In addition, we need to be mindful of how accountable care organizations, or ACOs, could worsen provider consolidation. We need to modernize the certificate-of-need regulations, and other laws, that stymie the construction of new hospitals that can compete with the well-connected incumbents. And we need to harmonize state medical licensing laws, so that insurers can send their patients to cheaper providers across state and national borders.

I got some excellent questions in the Q&A portion of the talk. Nancy Turnbull of Harvard asked me: in places where the “horses have already left the barn” and the hospitals have already merged, what can we do about it? Lynn Nicholas, CEO of the Massachusetts Hospital Association, asked: aren’t insurer monopolies also a problem? Others pointed out the fact that longer-term trends of decreasing hospital utilization are also driving consolidation, which makes it harder to justify building new hospitals.

Watch the video to see how I responded. The bottom line is not reassuring: it’s that there are no simple solutions to this very serious problem, which is why need to pay far more attention to it than we do.

UPDATE: Martin Gaynor and Robert Town have published an update to Town's important 2006 paper on hospital consolidation. They summarize:

Increases in hospital market concentration lead to increases in the price of hospital care. This finding is consistent with the conclusion of the 2006 synthesis. Since the 2006 report, several econometric studies have revisited the relationship between price and hospital concentration, using data from a variety of sources, thereby expanding the geographic scope of the evidence base. The prior evidence came almost exclusively from California. The more recent evidence comes from more states (Florida, Massachusetts) and from the entire United States (see Table 1). Ultimately, increases in health care costs (which are generally paid directly by insurers or self-insured employers) are passed on to health care consumers in the form of higher premiums, lower benefits and lower wages (see, e.g., Baicker and Chandra).

I am Forbes' Policy Editor, and president of a non-partisan think tank, the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP.org), which develops policy reform ideas…

I am Forbes' Policy Editor, and president of a non-partisan think tank, the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP.org), which develops policy reform ideas to expand economic opportunity to those who least have it. I'm on Twitter at @Avik. My work has also appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, The Atlantic, National Affairs, National Review, and other publications. I'm often on cable news; you can find a collection of my TV clips at YouTube.com/aviksaroy. For an archive of my writing prior to February 2011, please visit avikroy.net. I've served as a policy advisor to three presidential candidates. Previously, I worked as an analyst and portfolio manager at J.P. Morgan, Bain Capital, and other firms.